Forum:Serie specific header boxes
Just wondering if there was really any point having these templates anymore. If you're not sure what I'm talking about here is an example — . Given the requirement for references in articles doesn't that negate the use for these types of tags? It isn't a big issue, I think only three series use them, , so removing them won't cause that much havoc. Just wondering what everyone else (or anyone else) thinks about getting rid of them. – 14:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC) :Still looking for opinions...other then my own. – 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC) ::I don't think they're that necessary either. Each article is required to have the series link in text encased in brackets anyway (Star Trek: My Series), so you already know the source. It could be kind of redundant. --Hawku 00:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC) ::I'm not a fan of them either, since it sends a sort of "stand-off"ish attitude on certain articles. There is plenty of room for a work to reference the same starbase... not to mention that only two of the three series listed above actually have literature available to read, and even then, have very little on their sites to read. (Disclaimer: The Doctor and I are just as guilty on this part) --Talon Lardner 01:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC) :::I've started to remove them from pages, if anyone is really upset by this drop me a line on my talk page or in here. – 12:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC) ::::I agree with Jon. They present a formatting issue and there's ample other evidence for their source(s) that they really aren't necessary (and I'm the one who introduced them originally, IIRC). Though I didn't get a chance to weigh in on their removal, I'd still have supported it. 05:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC) ::::Likewise, there's no need for on series base-pages (PNR for example), as any such page is presumably written from a real-world perspective (and many others here lack that template... since it's self-explanatory, just by perusing the page). I'd say remove those too, from those kinds of pages. Really, any upper right corner box is superfluous, I think, except for the featured icons. 06:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC) :::::I don't know...maybe we should be heading in the other direction and strictly apply the template. The all or nothing approach I guess you would call it. – 08:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC) ::::::After (re)thinking about it... Yeah, you're right. 17:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Once Category:Real-world articles populates it's going to be big and difficult to navigate. Maybe instead of having the category in the template, we should manually apply it to relevant cats, such as Category:Fan fiction episodes. As for series, maybe populate Category:Fan series with all fics, films, rpgs, etc, minus the subcats and then categorise it in Cat:Real-world articles. – 04:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC) :I think that would work well., Jrofeta. That solution strikes a good balance of not cluttering up the page, with a good organizational system. --Talon Lardner 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)